Agenda Item AGENDA STAFF REPORT ASR Control 24-000018
MEETING DATE:	02/06/24
legal entity taking action:	Board of Supervisors
board of supervisors district(s):	4
SUBMITTING Agency/Department:	County Counsel (Approved)
Department contact person(s):	Nicole M. Walsh (714) 834-3300
	Justin Kirk (714) 667-8895

Subject: Appeal of Use Permit (PA22-0017) for Vehicle Storage

ceo CONCUR

County Counsel Review

Clerk of the Board

Concur

No Legal Objection

Public Hearing

3 Votes Board Majority

Budgeted: N/A

Current Year Cost: N/A

Annual Cost: N/A

Staffing Impact:

No

# of Positions:

Sole Source: N/A

Current Fiscal Year Revenue: N/A

Funding Source: N/A	County Audit in last 3 years: No
Levine Act Review Completed: Yes

Prior Board Action: N/A

RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):

1.	Receive appeal of PA22-0017 from the Hills for Everyone filed on November 9, 2023; and,
2.	Open the public hearing on the appeal of the Planning Commission approval of Planning Application PA22-0017 for a Use Permit to allow vehicle storage, receive public testimony as appropriate and close the public hearing; and,
3.	Deny the appeal and take the following actions:

a.

Find that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): Class 1 (Existing Facilities), Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), Class 4 (Minor Alterations to Land), and Class 11 (Accessory Structures) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301, 15303, 15304, and 15311; and

b.	Approve PA22-0017 for a Use Permit, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval contained in the OC Planning Report to the Planning Commission dated October 25, 2023.

SUMMARY:

Denying Hills for Everyone (HFE) appeal from the Planning Commission’s October 25, 2023, approval of Planning Application PA22-0017 would allow the applicant, Ecology Auto Parts to occupy three contiguous sites totaling 4.58 acres within a 19-acre site for vehicle and equipment storage, located at 1281 Brea Canyon Road (Project Site), in the Fourth Supervisorial District.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

The 19-acre Project Site is part of a larger land holding owned by Aera Energy LLC, totaling approximately 321 acres in unincorporated Orange County and an adjacent 2,614 acres in Los Angeles County. The 19-acre Project Site is in the southern portion of the 321 acres in unincorporated Orange County and adjacent to the intersection of Tonner Canyon Road and Brea Canyon Road in the County of Orange. The Project Site was initially graded, compacted, and developed by Caltrans in the mid to late 1970s as part of a larger construction project, the adjacent State Route 57 (SR 57). Grading spoils excavated from the SR 57 Freeway were placed as engineered fill at the site resulting in nine acres of flat pads and 2:1 slopes with terraced drains.

Over the past 40 years, Aera Energy has leased areas on the Project Site to various businesses that store commercial vehicles, transportation containers, trucking and oil equipment, operations of wood chipping/green waste, and other similar uses. The site is currently occupied by two similar commercial operations, Bennett Transportation and Nieto & Sons Trucking, Inc. who received approval from the Planning Commission on March 24, 2021, to occupy 0.90-acres and 2.32-acres, respectively, on established pad sites as a vehicle storage locale for their equipment leasing businesses in conformance with Section 7-9-30.2 of the Orange County Codified Ordinances (OCCO). The Project Site is enclosed by an existing six-foot-tall chain link fence and is accessed from Brea Canyon Road via a 24-foot-wide access road consisting of compact native soil and asphalt concrete paving at the site entrance.

The property owner and lease tenants wish to continue using the Project Site as a temporary site to support vehicle storage with ancillary uses until plans for the 321 acres are proposed. Bennett Transportation and Nieto & Sons Trucking received separate approvals in 2021 and are not a part of this application. Therefore, they will legally continue to operate regardless of the Board’s action on this item.

The application for the proposed Project was filed in February 2022 and requested a Use Permit to occupy three contiguous sites totaling 4.58 acres for vehicle and equipment storage, field office operations, and minor vehicle maintenance in conformance with OCCO Section 7-9-30.2.

Prior to the Planning Commission meeting, on October 20, 2023, the City of Brea (City) submitted a comment letter regarding the Project’s proposed land use and the proposed California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) determination set forth in the Planning Commission staff report. The City’s comment letter:

1)	noted that the City has pre-zoned the Project Site as Hillside Residential for purposes of potential future annexation of the site;
2)	requested that the County amend Condition of Approval No. 17 to limit the total allowable time period for the temporary use to a maximum of 10 years; and
3)	expressed concerns that the CEQA determination Categorical Exemption Class 1 (existing facilities) is not appropriate because the Project does not appear to be part of an existing use and therefore the project area should be considered as “vacant.”

The City further asserted that the County’s analysis was insufficient to substantiate that the Project would not have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances and/or cumulative impacts and that the Project's potential impacts were not fully mitigated as proposed. The City requested additional analysis be conducted related to the applicability of CEQA Categorical Exemption Classes 3, 4, and 11.

On October 25, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider PA22-0017. The City’s comment letter was part of the record that the Planning Commission reviewed. Staff presented the Project and responded to the comments received from the City of Brea. No other comment letters were received, and no entities or individuals appeared at the Planning Commission meeting to make oral comments. The Planning Commission voted 3-0 to approve the Project (Commissioner Perez abstaining). Meeting minutes are included as Attachment F.

Appeal

On November 9, 2023, HFE filed an appeal of the October 25, 2023, Planning Commission approval of PA22-0017. OCCO Section 7-9-125.10(d) provides that on appeal, the Board of Supervisors (Board) may take any of the following actions:

1)	Approve or disapprove the appeal;
2)	Approve or disapprove the original application;
3)	Add, modify or delete conditions of the original application;
4)	Approve a modified application submitted by original applicant; and/or
5)	Refer the application back to the Planning Commission with directions for action by the approving authority or for recommendations or reports to the Board.

Despite not appearing or commenting on the Project at the Planning Commission, OCCO Section 7-9-125.10(b) states, “[a]ny interested person or party may appeal a decision of the Director, Zoning Administrator, or Planning Commission regarding the action taken on a discretionary permit application, upon submittal of the required documents and information and payment of the required fee.”

This language allows for appeals even if a party failed to object at the Planning Commission. The fact that the Board is required to hear an appeal does not mean that the party appealing a Planning Commission action has in fact exhausted their administrative remedies such that an action in Superior Court would be appropriate. In fact, most of the arguments – except for one (regarding pre-zoning) – raised by HFE were not exhausted at the Planning Commission, which could be a separate basis for the Board’s denial of the appeal.

The appeal letter from HFE asserts the following:

1.	The Project is inconsistent with the County’s General Plan.
	a) The letter argues that the Project will generate noise and light pollution, degrade local air quality, and increase vehicle traffic at the site, which are inherently inconsistent with the County’s general plan policy to protect the sensitive wildlife and vegetation habitat at the Project site and surrounding area.
	b) The appellants argue that the Planning Commission did not make findings as to specific General Plan policies and programs and that they were required to do so.
	c) Finally, the letter argues that the Project will generate around the clock heavy truck traffic, which will in turn cause increased noise and air pollution that threatens wildlife in the area.
2.	The letter argues that the Project does not support the City of Brea’s efforts to protect lands in the City’s Sphere of Influence because it is inconsistent with the City’s pre-zoning and general plan policies.
	a) The letter asserts that the Project is inconsistent with a number of actions and policies in the City of Brea’s General Plan aimed at protecting sensitive wildlife habitat in the area.
3.	The Project is not Categorically Exempt from CEQA review.
	a) The letter argues that there is not substantial evidence in the record to support the Planning Commission’s reliance on CEQA categorical exemptions and that therefore more robust CEQA review is required.
	i. CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2(a) provides that Class 3, 4, and 11 categorical exemptions do not apply “where the project may impact . . . an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern.” That the areas immediately surrounding the Project site “consist [] of vast open space . . . that is environmentally sensitive.”
	ii. The letter argues that the Project Site includes habitat for the federally protected California gnatcatcher and that gnatcatcher have been observed on the Project Site.
	iii. The letter also argues that the Project’s increased traffic will pose a threat to mountain lions, which are a candidate species proposed for listing under the California Endangered Species Act.
	This evidence, the letter argues, supports the conclusion that the “critical environmental resource” exception to CEQA’s categorical exemptions applies here, and therefore, the claimed exemptions cannot apply.
	b) The letter also argues that the categorical exemptions cannot apply because the Project Site is near properties that are restricted by a conservation easement.
	c) The Project Site is located within a State Responsibility Area Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone adopted by CalFire, and the letter argues this is a further reason the CEQA exemptions cannot apply.
	d) Finally, the letter argues that there is a reasonable possibility that the Project will have a significant environmental impact, rendering the CEQA exemptions inapplicable.

County Response to Appeal

1.	a) The land use will not generate noise and light pollution, degrade local air quality, and increase vehicle traffic at the site in a manner inconsistent with the County’s General Plan policy that protects sensitive wildlife and vegetation habitat. Goal 1 and 3, Resources Element, Orange County General Plan, p. VI-32. The Project Site was initially graded, compacted, and developed by Caltrans in the mid to late 1970s as part of a larger construction project. Grading spoils excavated from SR 57 were placed as engineered fill at the Project Site resulting in nine acres of flat lease pads and 2:1 slopes with terraced drains – an unnatural and disturbed condition. The Project Site has operated as a commercial site for over 40 years, further disturbing the entirety of the 4.8-acre leased pads on which the Project is proposed. Any habitat, to the extent that any viable habitat remains, is located between the existing and operational leased pad sites and is fragmented and isolated with little, if any, value to sensitive species. Vegetation near the established footprint of the Project Site and along the southern boundary have been regularly maintained for years as required by the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA), further disturbing the Project Site and reducing any potential habitat value. The Project Site is already fully disturbed and has been in use with other various businesses that stored commercial vehicles, transportation containers, trucking and oil equipment, and operations of wood chipping/green waste for approximately 45 years. As shown in the aerial view of the 19-acre Project Site, the 4.58-acre leased pads on which the Project is proposed are entirely graded and consist primarily of (if not exclusively) bare dirt, with no visible habitat areas. Attachment B, at p. 4. Also visible in the aerial image is the existing six-foot tall chain link fence surrounding the entirety of the 19-acre Project Site, which prevents any larger sensitive species (e.g., mountain lion) from entering the site. In keeping with the established wildlife corridors around the Project Site, larger animals are naturally diverted around the Project Site. The proposed Project does not alter any of these conditions. See Attachment K. Additionally, there are no blue line streams or any riparian habitat within the areas impacted by the proposed Project. The Project Site has existing 42-foot-tall light poles which provide illumination during evening and nighttime hours. Project implementation would not create new lighting or additional light pollution, meaning that the Project itself proposes no change from the status quo in terms of lighting and potential light pollution. According to the Board adopted County Guidelines for Evaluating Vehicle Miles Traveled under CEQA, land development projects that are considered small projects are presumed to create a less than significant impact on transportation and circulation. Small projects are defined as land development projects that generate 500 or fewer average daily trips. The proposed Project would result in approximately 212 average daily trips, qualifying as a “small project” that is presumed to have a less than significant traffic and circulation impact for CEQA purposes. As to air quality, MIG developed a technical memo to analyze the constructional and operations emissions generated by the proposed Project. See Attachment L. The Project’s potential air quality emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version (V.) 2022.1. CalEEMod is a computer program recommended for use by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for use in preparing emission estimates for land use and development projects. The proposed Project’s construction and operational characteristics are based on the descriptions in the project’s April 2023 use permit application and October 2023 Planning Commission staff report. Emissions were generated using CalEEMod default assumptions, modified as follows to reflect the following Project-specific context, information, and details: - Construction Phases: Project construction was modified to remove demolition, grading, and paving phases to reflect that the Project would not include any demolition or grading and would not include extensive paving. - Hauling: Soils were assumed to be balanced onsite. - Fugitive Dust: Watering twice per day was added to construction in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. - Vehicle Trips: Vehicle trip rates were updated to 12 vehicle trips per day for the office land use and 88 vehicle trips per day for the other asphalt surface land use based on the 100 daily trips as described in the Construction Planning Services letter for the proposed Project (CPS 2023). The emissions modeling conducted for the Project is considered very conservative (i.e., likely to substantially overestimate daily Project emissions). Full results of the emissions analysis are contained in Attachment L, but MIG concluded that the construction and operational emissions from the proposed Project would not exceed any applicable SCAQMD-recommended CEQA thresholds of significance. See Attachment L. The proposed Project, therefore, would not result in a new or substantially greater significant air quality impact. As a result, there are no significant air quality impacts that would trigger further environmental review and the CEQA exemptions are applicable. As to noise impacts, a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment related to noise if it would substantially increase the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas or conflict with the adopted environmental plans and goals of the community in which it is located. Along side a busy freeway, the noise level is 88.5 dBA. A project creates a significant noise impact if the project-related noise increase at an existing sensitive receptor is greater than 3 dB and the resulting noise level is greater than 5 A-weighted decibels (dBA). The Project Site primarily experiences noise generated by the traffic associated with Brea Canyon Road and the SR 57 located adjacent to the Project Site. Specifically, the 4.58-acre site is approximately 480 feet from the SR 57. Noise generated by the Project will consist of heavy trucks driving in and out of the site, with the highest concentration of that noise expected between the hours of 5:00 AM - 8:00 AM and 2:30 PM - 5:30 PM Monday through Friday and 8:30 AM and 11:00 AM – 2:30 PM on Saturday. On Sunday, the operations are typically closed. This type of noise is in keeping with the existing noise generated by the operations of Nieto & Sons Trucking, Inc. and Bennett Transportation. Noise analysis for a project considers whether there are nearby sensitive receptors that would be negatively impacted by the noise a proposed project is expected to generate. Here, the nearest sensitive receptor (i.e., residences) is approximately 0.36 miles (1,802 feet) south of the Project Site. At this distance the noise that is expected to be generated by the Project would be less than significant and is expected to blend with the existing traffic noise generated by SR 57 and Brea Canyon Road. Therefore, any noise created from the Project would not result in additional conflicts in relation to noise generated by the existing traffic on Brea Canyon Road and the SR 57. In terms of noise impacts to species, the noise generated by the Project is expected to be the same in character and decibel level as the noise already generated by the operations of Bennett Transportation and Nieto & Sons Trucking, Inc. Additionally, the Project does not propose the construction of any new roadways, nor would it introduce sources of noise into areas that are not already impacted by noise. Because the Project proposes to use largely prefabricated structures, with minimal on-site development, the Project’s construction and operational noise impacts are less than significant. Because all impacts are expected to be less than significant based on the nature, location, and design of the Project, the Project is consistent with the County’s General Plan policies and objectives. b) The Planning Commission made the finding that the Use Permit is “consistent with the objectives, policies, and general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan.” The evidence in the record, including the evidence regarding the long-time use of the Project Site (including ongoing similar uses by Bennett Transportation and Nieto & Sons Transportation, Inc.) and previous grading activities (the 1970s grading of the entirety of the 19-acre Project Site by Caltrans) demonstrates that the Project Site is highly disturbed and developed, possessing little to no habitat on site for either wildlife or plant communities. See Attachment J. The evidence before the Planning Commission acknowledged that there may be sensitive habitat nearby, though outside of the bounds of the Project Site, and staff addressed a similar comment raised by the City of Brea’s comment letter, indicating that there are no known sensitive wildlife or habitat resources on the Project Site itself. The Project does not propose development or activities that would conflict with the County’s objectives to prevent the elimination of significant wildlife and vegetation, and to identify and preserve significant wildlife habitats, because the Project would not impact any such habitats. Thus, the Use Permit is consistent with the policies of the County General Plan Resource Element, in addition to being generally consistent with the County’s General Plan overall. Consistency with the General Plan simply requires that, when a project is examined, “it will further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment.” Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville, 154 Cal.App.4th 807, 817 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). The evidence before the Planning Commission indicated that the Project is entirely consistent with the General Plan’s policies and objectives. c) The HFE’s assertions relating to the generation of traffic, noise, and air are incorrect. HFE inaccurately asserts that the Project Site is vacant; it is not. In addition to several unmanned telecommunication facility monopoles and associated equipment buildings that exists on the Project Site, currently, Bennett Transportation occupies 0.90 acres of the larger 19-acre Project Site as a vehicle storage site for their equipment leasing business located in the City of Fullerton. Bennett Transport is a freight shipping and trucking company, providing freight transportation services and hauling cargo. Bennett Transport has used this site for its business since 1977, initially without planning approvals, but with all appropriate approvals for approximately the last three years. Nieto & Sons Trucking, Inc., occupies three contiguous lease pad sites totaling 2.32 acres within the larger 19-acre Project Site for vehicle and equipment storage, field office operations, and minor vehicle maintenance. Nieto & Sons Trucking uses the site to store tractor rigs, bobtail trucks, and various vacuum and specialized vehicles, which are used off-site to service oilfields, car washes, and underground storage tanks, and have been so operating at this site for more than 40 years – initially without planning approvals but has been operating with all appropriate planning approvals since 2021. Following the initiation of a Code Enforcement action in 2016, both existing businesses received the necessary permits to bring their operations into compliance. The changes required to bring the existing operations into compliance included demolition within the 19-acre Project Site, further disturbing the site. On March 24, 2021, The Planning Commission approved two planning applications for the existing businesses within the 19-acre Project Site, permitting Bennett Transportation and Nieto & Sons Trucking to occupy adjacent lease pad sites as a vehicle storage locale for their businesses in conformance with OCCO Section 7-9-30.2. These existing, authorized operations abut the 4.58-acre site proposed for the Project. The planning approvals for both existing businesses also authorized new construction on their respective lease pads of structures larger than proposed by the Project, adjacent to the Project’s proposed location. The proposed Project is like the existing and ongoing uses of the adjacent leased pad sites occupied by Bennett Transportation and Nieto & Sons Transportation, Inc. Ecology Auto is a transportation company that hauls bulk waste, recycling, oversized loads, and containers across the Western United States. Due to the varying delivery and pick-up schedules, Ecology Auto would operate on the Project Site 24 hours a day. Site operations include a total of 56 employees (50 drivers and six office employees) structured within three, eight-hour shifts. Administrative operations are primarily from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, with the truck drivers anticipated to enter/exit the Project Site at varying points during each 8-hour shift depending on their specific route and schedule. Drivers do not remain on the Project Site but instead leave their truck and exit the Project Site in their personal vehicle at the end of a shift. There are only six administrative employees. The number of administrative employes anticipated on site at any specific time varies depending on their shift schedule. The Project Site's southerly boundary parallels Brea Canyon Road and SR 57. The areas east, north, and between the 4.58-acre leased pads on which the Project is proposed consist of a combination of the other trucking operations, and open space beyond the 19-acre Project Site borders. The Project’s proposed use, in addition to the existing operations of Bennett Transportation and Nieto & Sons Transportation, Inc., is anticipated to generate a total of 212 average daily trips. Small projects, defined as land development projects that generate 500 or fewer average daily trips are presumed to create a less than significant impact on transportation and circulation, pursuant to state CEQA guidance and the County’s adopted VMT guidance.
2.	a) The 19-acre Project Site was initially graded, compacted, and developed by Caltrans in the mid to late 1970s as part of a larger construction project, including the 4.58 acres on which the Project is proposed. Commercial trucking and green waste operations have been present on the 19-acre Project Site, directly adjacent to and on the 4.58-acre leased pads on which the Project is proposed, for more than 45 years. Specifically, Harbor Truck Bodies operated for over 20 years storing their light duty trucks and chassis until Treeco, a tree and landscape service company, took over the leased pad area for more than 26 years for their green waste operations including chipping and grinding operations. Any potential habitat located between the leased pad sites is fragmented and isolated. Attachments E, K. The existing uses on the 19-acre Project Site were established prior to the City’s pre-zoning, which occurred in 2004. The City’s pre-zoning was undertaken in anticipation of submitting an annexation application to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for the entirety of the Aera Energy site, including the Project Site – an application which, to date, has never been submitted. As shown in the staff report before the Planning Commission, the 4.58-acre leased pads on which the Project is proposed consist almost entirely of bare dirt, severely disturbed by decades of commercial trucking operations, commercial green waste use, and vegetation maintenance. Attachment B, p. 4, Aerial View of Project Site; Attachment K The remaining vegetation onsite is maintained regularly by Nieto & Sons, who takes the lead for the Project Site as a means of controlling and mitigating fire risk in accordance with the Orange County Fire Master Plan and the Orange County Fuel Modification Plan. Despite the City’s pre-zoning, the Project Site remains solely within the jurisdiction of unincorporated Orange County and subject to the County’s General Plan and zoning. Under the County General Plan and existing zoning applicable to the 4.58-acre leased pads on which the Project is proposed, the Project is surrounded by compatible uses: a large, active road; other trucking businesses; and SR 57. The Project does not expand the heavily disturbed 19-acre Project Site beyond what currently exists and proposes no disturbance to areas outside of the 4.58-acre lease pads which are visibly heavily disturbed and devoid of suitable habitat vegetation and therefore, does not conflict with the City’s intent behind its pre-zoning. See Attachment K. As the Planning Commission action notes, the Use Permit limits the Project to a maximum 10-year term before requiring the applicant to seek an entirely new approval and makes the sole 5-year extension subject to approval by the Planning Director. Both actions are discretionary and can be denied in the event the City does submit an annexation application. b) As stated above, the entire 19-acre Project Site has been heavily graded and disturbed and has been used for commercial operations for over 40 years. While the Project Site lies within the general area of the Brea Canyon wildlife corridor, the 19-acre Project Site is bordered by a six-foot-tall chain link fence making it difficult for large animals to traverse through the Project Site. Further, any habitat located between the leased pad sites is fragmented and isolated, to the extent that any exists on the heavily graded and disturbed Project Site. The proposed Project is located on 4.58 acres of existing graded pad sites and proposes no construction or demolition outside of the 4.58 acre graded leased pad sites. The entirety of the activity proposed by the Project occurs within the 4.58-acre leased pad sites, or on established roadways. None of the proposed activities will destroy or disrupt natural resources outside of the 19-acre Project Site. Nor does the Project affect the integrity of any blue line streams and riparian habitat areas, as no such streams or habitat areas exist within the 4.58-acre leased pad sites where construction activities are proposed. See Attachment B, p. 4; Attachment K. According to the National Wetlands Inventory, the Project Site contains a Riverine System that runs in a north/south direction easterly of the Project’s 4.58-acre lease pads. The Riverine System is a concrete channel built prior to 1987. The proposed Project is located approximately 380 feet west of the Riverine System. The entirety of the activity proposed by the Project occurs within the 4.58-acre leased pads, or on the existing, established roadways. None of the proposed activities will destroy, disrupt, or have any impact on the existing Riverine System. c) Due to the existing 6-foot perimeter fencing surrounding the Project Site, the highly disturbed nature of the overall Project Site, as well as the highly disturbed nature of the leased pads on which the Project is proposed, the fragmented and isolated habitat (to the extent any exists) between the leased pad sites, the regular trimming of grass and trees, and clearing of shrubs to comply with fire regulations and to minimize and control potential fire risk, and the proximity to heavy traffic areas of Brea Canyon Road and the SR 57, it is unlikely that the Project Site supports important biological resources, including several rare and endemic communities or contributes to any substantial wildlife movement within and near the Project Site. The plans that OCFA found to meet all applicable regulations support this conclusion. See Attachments E, K. As shown in the images included in the Planning Commission Staff Report, the 4.58-acre leased pads on which the Project is proposed are almost entirely bare dirt or native soil that does not include habitat for either the California gnatcatcher or mountain lion. Attachment B, p. 4; Attachment J. California gnatcatcher specifically primarily nest and forage within California coastal sage scrub habitats, making infrequent use of highly disturbed areas. The Planning Commission’s adopted findings specifically note that “the proposed project will not have a significant unmitigated impact upon Coastal Sage Scrub habitat . . . .” There are habitat areas within the County’s General Plan identified Wildlife Habitat Areas (see General Plan, Figure VI-18) to the Northeast and Southeast of the Project Site; however, none fall within the Project Site itself. See Attachment K.
3.	a) The Class 1 categorical exemption allows for the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing of existing uses and structures, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency’s determination. The appellant incorrectly asserts that the Project Site is vacant and that the proposed use does not exist onsite. The proposed Project is located on three contiguous lease pad sites totaling 4.58 acres within the larger 19-acre Project Site for vehicle and equipment storage, field office operations, and minor vehicle maintenance. Currently existing within the 19-acre Project Site are Bennett Transportation, occupying an adjacent 0.90 acres as a vehicle storage locale for their equipment leasing business located in the City of Fullerton and Nieto & Sons Trucking, Inc., occupying three contiguous lease pad sites totaling 2.32 acres adjacent to the leased pad sites proposed for the Project, for vehicle and equipment storage, field office operations, and minor vehicle maintenance. The 4.58-acre leased pad areas on which the Project is proposed are currently graded and are used by other businesses to park vehicles and were previously used for commercial vehicle operations and commercial green waste operations. Importantly, the leased pads on which the Project is proposed are sandwiched between the Bennett Transportation and Nieto & Sons Trucking, Inc., sites, and the Project’s leased pads currently consist of graded bare dirt or gravel and contain an existing fire water tank, fire hydrant, and light poles. See Attachment J. The appellant asserts that there is no evidence that environmental review has ever been conducted at the site. This is also incorrect, as environmental review was conducted for PA170021 (Bennett Transportation) and PA170022 (Nieto & Sons Trucking) in 2021. Both projects were eligible for a Class 1 exemption due to the existing nature of the activities being permitted and because they were proposed with no expansion beyond what was currently existing onsite. At the time both prior projects were permitted (2021), the existing onsite uses included vehicle storage, three cargo containers totaling 840 square feet for storage and a canopy structure for weather protection for PA170021 and vehicle storage, field office, diesel fuel station, fire water tank, minor vehicle maintenance and numerous cargo containers for PA170022. These activities are still present on the Project Site and still constitute existing uses for the purpose of evaluating this Project. The proposed Project is also eligible for a Class 3 exemption, which applies to new small construction or conversion of small structures, since the proposed 528-square-foot prefabricated, modular field office does not exceed 2,500 square feet in floor area where the existing zoning allows for the use and because it does not involve the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances, all necessary public services and facilities are available, and the surrounding Project Site is not environmentally sensitive. The Project involves no changes or use of land outside of the 4.58-acres of leased pad space within the larger 19-acre Project Site. No Project improvements or operations are proposed outside of the 19-acre Project Site. Further, the proposed use of storing vehicles onsite is similar to the other existing uses onsite and does not create a more intensive and environmentally damaging use than what currently exists. The Class 4 categorical exemption, (Minor Alterations to Land) is appropriate because the Project will continue its current operation as a vehicle storage facility with only limited improvements proposed including ADA accessibility parking and ramp, construction of a commercial, prefabricated modular administrative office unit, and placement of above-ground fuel/exhaust tanks on the previously graded site. These limited improvements will not result in the taking of endangered, rare, or threatened plant or animal species or significant erosion and sedimentation of surface waters because they do not involve any anticipated vegetation removal and involve only small amounts of onsite construction (installing prefabricated structures and ADA improvements). None of these activities are proposed in proximity to blue line streams or riparian habitat, and all are proposed on areas that are already entirely disturbed, covered in native soil, and have been previously graded and used extensively both for vehicle storage and storage of relatively small above-ground structures. Additionally, the Class 11 categorical exemption, (Accessory Structures) is appropriate since the Project involves the continuation of current operations including vehicle storage and only proposes minor improvements which includes an above-ground 12,000-gallon fuel tank and 2,550-gallon diesel exhaust tank, and cargo container structure specifically related to the commercial facility and operation. All of these are minor structures that are accessory and appurtenant to the existing commercial vehicle storage facilities, and to the proposed commercial vehicle storage facilities. The evidence supporting the application of these categorical exemptions is present in the information presented to the Planning Commission, included in Attachments B through I. There is no evidence that the proposed Project is unusual in nature, given the existing and longstanding commercial trucking operations on the 19-acre Project Site, nor is there any evidence that this proposed Project presents unusual circumstances that would prevent the reliance on these categorical exemptions from CEQA. Therefore, because the CEQA exemptions apply, no further environmental review is required. b) As stated above, the 19-acre Project Site was heavily graded starting in the 1970s and has long been disturbed due to its use as a commercial operating site for over 45 years. While the appellant is correct that there are environmentally sensitive open space areas surrounding the larger 19-acre Project Site, the proposed Project itself is located within 4.58-acres of an existing operational commercial facility site and does not expand into the surrounding areas, or even into other areas of the larger 19-acre Project Site. The 19-acre Project Site is bordered by an existing six-foot-tall chain link fence making it difficult for large animals including mountain lions to traverse through the Project Site or the smaller 4.58-acre leased pad area that is the subject of the proposed Project. Further, any habitat located between the leased pad sites, to the extent that any remains on the very disturbed and largely barren 19-acre Project Site, is fragmented and isolated. See Attachment B at p. 4, showing an aerial view of the Project Site and Attachment J showing historical aerial photos of Project Site. While the California gnatcatcher has been observed near to and abutting the 19-acre Project Site, the habitat is fragmented and isolated. OCFA already requires Brush Management on slopes surrounding the 19-acre Project Site for fire prevention and mitigation purposes, which further decreases the potential value of the Project Site as possible habitat. As shown by the plans OCFA reviewed, there is no federally protected animal or bird habitat within the brush management area of the 19-acre Project Site. The proposed Project is located on existing graded pad sites (4.58-acres of the larger 19-acre Project Site, adjacent to the existing, permitted commercial trucking operations) that are barren and does not contemplate or include any alteration or removal of vegetation outside the Project Site. Nor does the proposed Project impact or alter the nonexistent California gnatcatcher habitat onsite. As noted by the OCFA plans found to be consistent with their regulations, there is no federally protected animal or bird habitat within the brush management area on the exterior of the 19-acre Project Site. See Attachment E. c) The appellant is correct that the 19-acre Project Site is located near other properties that are restricted by a conservation easement. However, the closest portion of the Project Site to these other properties subject to conservation easements is located approximately 1,000 feet outside the northwest boundary of the conservation easement and is further disconnected from the conservation easement by Brea Canyon Road and SR 57. No portion of the proposed Project impacts these other properties, as the proposed Project is almost entirely restricted to the 4.58-acre leased pad area. d) OCFA has reviewed and found that the Fire Master Plan and the Fuel Modification Plan for the Project Site meet all applicable regulations. See Attachment E. Both plans addressed OCFA regulations including fire roadway access and the thinning/removal of combustible vegetation surrounding structures from potential wildfires. No additional landscape is required or proposed. OCFA concluded that the Project could be adequately served with Vegetation Management including year-round brush clearance within the 2:1 sloped areas as well as compliance with the California Building Code Chapter 7A and project specific requirements including: - Asphalt paving material for the first 100 feet of existing entry road. - An “all-weather” surface material (soil/cement mixture) over the existing graded roadway installed beyond the paved entry road to support emergency vehicles. - A new, prefabricated, above-ground 15,000-gallon water tank for the required automatic fire sprinklers within the proposed prefabricated modular administrative office and required fire hydrant. - Reduction/removal of combustible fuels within 100 feet of any structure, enclosure or storage container. - Existing manual access gate at site entry with Knox or breakaway padlock. - Paving of the first 100 feet of the existing entry road has already been completed and is not part of the proposed Project. e) For the reasons described in detail above (see response to item 3(a)) and as set forth in the evidence before the Planning Commission (Attachments B-I), there is no reasonable possibility that the proposed Project will have a significant environmental impact. Additionally, the entirety of the proposed Project is subject to multiple CEQA exemptions. Thus, no further environmental review is required.

Compliance with CEQA: As discussed in detail above, the proposed Project is Categorically Exempt (Classes 1, 3, 4, and 11) from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301, 15303, 15304, and 15311, because these collectively exempt the operation, repair, maintenance, leasing, and minor operation of existing facilities (Class 1), conversion of small structures (Class 3), and minor alterations to land (Class 4 from compliance with CEQA). Class 11 additionally allows for accessory structures to be added to existing facilities. The proposed Project includes the operation of a commercial trucking facility on property already used for commercial trucking operations, along with minor alterations and construction to allow for such use, including the construction of prefabricated structures, with such uses being authorized only for an initial five-year term.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no Financial Impact associated with the Recommended Actions of this Agenda Staff Report.

STAFFING IMPACT:

N/A

REVIEWING AGENCIES:

OC Public Works

ATTACHMENT(S):

Attachment A - Appeal Letter from HFE dated November 9, 2023
Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 25, 2023
Attachment C - Planning Commission Findings and Conditions of Approval
Attachment D - Applicants Letter, Site Photos, and Project Plans
Attachment E - OCFA Plans SR541657
Attachment F - Geotechnical Update Letter
Attachment G - Geotechnical Report and Approved Fault Study
Attachment H - Comment Letter from the City of Brea to the PC dated October 20, 2023
Attachment I - Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2023
Attachment J - Historical Aerial Photos of Project Site
Attachment K - City of Brea General Plan, Figure 6, Existing Vegetation
Attachment L – MIG January 9, 2023, AQMD Memorandum